On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:20 PM Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Adam Bowie <a...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote: > >> Why don't they just put it all on their own YouTube channel? They could >> broadcast live when necessary. Also, they wouldn't need to build an app >> " in order to be available on web, mobile, and major settop platforms >> including Apple TV, Roku, Chromecast, Fire stick and Android TV." >> >> YouTube is already on all those things. >> >> Seems like a lot of expense and effort to build something >> mostly unnecessary... >> > > I’ve been hearing rumors recently... scuttlebutt... gossip... and other > reliable unreliable sources, that the industry is starting to resent > YouTube’s dominance in the online video world (it recently boasted record > profits in the billions)... > > > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/02/alphabet-chief-lifts-the-covers-on-earnings/?amp=1 > > ... except for a few cases, none of that money will ever see its way back > to content creators. So the thought process goes, if everybody has their > own apps, they can all pull their “official” content off YouTube, then > threaten to sue unless they pull all their unofficial content. While > audiences might reject losing their free access to content, the industry > trend is supporting putting more behind a paywall, so the risk might pay > off. > I'm certain that you're right and that some organisations don't want to let YouTube dominate. Although how many of them are now re-selling their channels via things like Apple TV+ is another question. But for a fairly niche platform that can't hope to charge a subscription, the idea that you would go out, build your own app that works across lots of popular platforms, then persuade people to install it, to watch your one show a year that has such a small audience that no cable channel can be bothered to cover it, seems utter madness. I also think they're going to be disappointed when they discover that the number of people interested in watching a funny bit from the Emmys ten years ago is not exactly massive. I could *possibly* see wider interest if the Academy were, say, hosting and recording lots of Q&As with stars and creators, or panel discussions on various relevant subjects that TV/media types might be interested in seeing. But there's no mention of that. Still with "peak TV" the Academy is probably rolling in cash from all those awards entry fees and can build its own platform regardless of audience demand! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGCgLuFgs8wnK8rrSGjM4xq68p2agNqmNgt4z9PJOt1mCg%40mail.gmail.com.
